https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
Pavel Revak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pavel.revak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82632
Bug ID: 82632
Summary: copy deduction candidate erroneously preferred over
deduction-guide
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82233
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82612
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
I realize there's no ARRAY_REF but users unfamiliar with GCC internals don't,
nor would they care. I'm less concerned about code that defeats the type
system by using casts (though it would be nice to diagnos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82630
Bug ID: 82630
Summary: Bogus DW_AT_GNU_call_site_value
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82631
Bug ID: 82631
Summary: Bogus DW_AT_GNU_call_site_value
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82308
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82308
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Oct 20 00:30:41 2017
New Revision: 253920
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253920&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-19 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/82308
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79790
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pkeir at outlook dot com
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80997
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82629
Bug ID: 82629
Summary: OpenMP 4.5 Target Region mangling problem
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/8.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.0 20171019 (experimental
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82598
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575
--- Comment #8 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Oct 19 23:06:20 2017
New Revision: 253914
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253914&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR82575, lto debugobj references __gnu_lto_slim, ld test liblto-17 fails
If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81712
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed by r249731 on trunk and r249956 on gcc-7-branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82626
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82626
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I think a value of 0 should be correct with -mfpmath=sse.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82626
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82627
Bug ID: 82627
Summary: [8 regression] r253809 breaks test cases
gcc.dg/graphite/interchange-3.c -7.c, -9.c, and
uns-interchange-9.c
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82626
Bug ID: 82626
Summary: -msse and -mfpmath=sse Causes __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ to
be -1
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82597
--- Comment #6 from Michael Collison ---
Yes I am aware of that report. I have a fix that should be sent to gcc-patches
shortly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82614
--- Comment #5 from Marco Castelluccio ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> (In reply to Marco Castelluccio from comment #3)
> > > Thanks for the report Marco. Looks it comes from Firefox, am I right?
> >
> > Yes, that's correct. Act
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81924
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Yeah, that looks like a backporting oversight.
I'll have a look after I recover from the post-vacation email slog.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82625
Bug ID: 82625
Summary: lower-optimization are not inlined with symbol
multiversioning
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82617
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The ICE depends on the configuration of the compiler:
with --enable-checking=release, I get
during RTL pass: expand
pr82617.f90:27:0:
items = strwords_impl(str,white)
internal compiler error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82597
--- Comment #5 from Arseny Solokha ---
So there is another testcase in PR82592.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82620
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82617
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82597
Michael Collison changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael.collison at linaro dot
org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82620
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #32 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Misty De Meo from comment #31)
> For what it's worth, Apple's response was: "We analyzed the issue and
> determined the problem to be a latent bug in gcc’s build system that is
> revealed by chang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82595
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
On 10/19/17, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82595
>
> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> BTW, why --without-pic? What you want to achieve by that?
>
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82624
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Patches should be sent to gcc-patches@.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82624
Bug ID: 82624
Summary: [msp430] Target must allow for NULL pointer
dereferences
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82623
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79402
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79402
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu Oct 19 17:54:58 2017
New Revision: 253908
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253908&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-19 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/79402
* resolve.c (fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82623
Bug ID: 82623
Summary: many omp tests failed for both C++ and Fortran,
gcc-6.4 on Redhat 7.3/64
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82233
--- Comment #17 from Christophe Lyon ---
Thanks for your effort; I'm still seeing noise though.
Sorry, I'm not fluent in fortran: is there a way to call wait() from fortran?
I could try adding it at the end of the testcase, to see if it reliably
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82233
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Oct 19 17:49:24 2017
New Revision: 253907
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253907&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-19 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82618
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82618
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Oct 19 17:35:39 2017
New Revision: 253905
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253905&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/82618
* config/i386/i386.md (sub to cmp)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82619
tower120 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82619
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82407
Bug 82407 depends on bug 82395, which changed state.
Bug 82395 Summary: [8 Regression] qsort comparator non-negative on sorted
output: 1 in color_allocnos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82395
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82395
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82395
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Thu Oct 19 16:48:34 2017
New Revision: 253904
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253904&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
ira-color: fix allocno_priority_compare_func for qsort (PR 82395)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79543
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79543
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #31 from Misty De Meo ---
> If --disable-libstdcxx-pch works (does it?), and until someone can
> investigate more, I'd be tempted to consider it a mac bug and recommend that
> option in https://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html .
F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82619
--- Comment #2 from tower120 ---
> If a `std::tuple` is passed in as `tuple`, isn't `std::apply` found by ADL?
Maybe, I don't understand how and when ADL work :(
Visual Studio / clang compiler said nothing about it, so I thought ...
Are you su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82622
Bug ID: 82622
Summary: [PDT] ICE in structure_alloc_comps, at
fortran/trans-array.c:8963
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82622
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||82173
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82621
Bug ID: 82621
Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] wrong code with -Og -fgcse -fweb
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82620
Bug ID: 82620
Summary: [PDT] ICE: free_expr0(): Bad expr type (at
fortran/expr.c:497)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 82596, which changed state.
Bug 82596 Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index into string
literal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82596
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82596
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82596
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Oct 19 16:03:07 2017
New Revision: 253902
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253902&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82596 - missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82619
--- Comment #1 from d25fe0be@ ---
If a `std::tuple` is passed in as `tuple`, isn't `std::apply` found by ADL?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82619
Bug ID: 82619
Summary: C++17 std::apply treated as in global namespace under
certain circumstances
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 19 14:24:39 2017
New Revision: 253899
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253899&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82600
* typeck.c (check_return_expr): Don't call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82610
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Sorry about the breakage.
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Hmm, include/ shouldn't include system headers directly :/ Of course they
> all do...
>
> is probably not too bad to include uncond
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82434
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82615
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> The rev. was supposed to be a no-op?
I also guess so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82601
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here is a variant of the example in comment 0, where the subroutine has been
substituted by a function:
program uninit
integer :: p,q
p = -1
q = f(p)
if (p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82615
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |8.0
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81591
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Sistek ---
Hello,
are there any news regarding this issue, please? Were you able to reproduce it?
Best wishes,
Jakub Sistek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82509
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82601
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> (does intent(out) mean it comes in uninitialized?)
Yes. To quote the Fortran 2008 standard (from section 5.3.10):
"The INTENT (OUT) attribute for a n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82509
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Oct 19 13:50:10 2017
New Revision: 253893
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253893&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/82509
* dwarf2out.c (new_die_raw): New static
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82618
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 42402
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42402
Prototype patch
Nice, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82618
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 42402
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42402&action=edit
Prototype patch
Attached patch compiles the test to:
movq%rsi, %r10
cmpq%rdx, %rdi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82130
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Heiko Eißfeldt from comment #1)
> This variant works for me with:
Yes, that's a simple workaround. Still, it would be nice to have support for
the stringification operator '#' in tradi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra ---
> --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> OK. I suppose they are properly prevailed by any global symbol of the same
> name
> as well? Like a weak definition with default visibility? Or is there the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82595
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, why --without-pic? What you want to achieve by that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82445
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82595
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82445
--- Comment #7 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Oct 19 13:14:55 2017
New Revision: 253891
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253891&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR 82445 - suppress 32-bit aligned ldrd/strd peepholing with
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82445
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Oct 19 13:16:42 2017
New Revision: 253892
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253892&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR 82445 - suppress 32-bit aligned ldrd/strd peepholing with
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82618
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Maybe a peephole2 pattern for sub_3 with:
"find_regno_note (peep2_next_insn (0), REG_UNUSED, operand[0])"
constraint that converts to equivalent compare would do the trick?
Hopefully, later passes (cprop_har
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #30 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #29)
> The result of "make -d --trace -j8 all-target-libstdc++-v3", in a build
> where x86_64-apple-darwin17.0.0/libstdc++-v3 was entirely removed, can be
> fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On October 19, 2017 2:33:17 PM GMT+02:00, amodra at gmail dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575
>
>--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra ---
>> --- Comment #4 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82445
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Oct 19 13:10:42 2017
New Revision: 253890
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253890&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR 82445 - suppress 32-bit aligned ldrd/strd peepholing with
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37704
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fang at csl dot cornell.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49582
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48097
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82618
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or add a pattern for
(set (reg:DI 100)
(subreg:DI (minus:TI (reg/v:TI 90 [ x ])
(reg/v:TI 94 [ y ])) 8))
that combine would match and then reload that differently if not using SSE regs
and spl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82618
Bug ID: 82618
Summary: Inefficient double-word subtration on x86_64
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82617
Bug ID: 82617
Summary: Internal compiler error in expand_expr_real_1 when
compiling the attached file
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra ---
> --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
> Hmm, but those symbols will prevail, enlarging the final symbol table?
> Or are weak + hidden symbols removed even for shared libaries?
Well, they are still undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82595
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Well, lsan_preinit.o shouldn't be linked into liblsan.so.*, either we should
> just ignore it completely, or install and link in like asan_preinit.o or
> tsan_pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81795
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
Compiling with an older GCC makes me wonder: could the fix for this bug also be
backported to the other open branches?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81048
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81048
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu Oct 19 12:16:41 2017
New Revision: 253889
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253889&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-19 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/81048
* resolve.c (res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82614
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Marco Castelluccio from comment #3)
> > Thanks for the report Marco. Looks it comes from Firefox, am I right?
>
> Yes, that's correct. Actually, from a build of the JS shell.
>
> > Which version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82614
--- Comment #3 from Marco Castelluccio ---
> Thanks for the report Marco. Looks it comes from Firefox, am I right?
Yes, that's correct. Actually, from a build of the JS shell.
> Which version of GCC have you been using?
The build was done with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82616
Bug ID: 82616
Summary: ../bfd/.libs/libbfd.a(plugin.o): undefined reference
to symbol 'dlsym@@GLIBC_2.16'
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
URL: https://sourceware.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #15 from Morwenn ---
That was insanely fast, thanks a lot! :)
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
